Search form

Why dogs are so different from wolves

A PBS documentary highlighted some of the remarkable differences between wolves and domesticated dogs (Nova: Dogs Decoded, video). The Nova segment is a remarkable distillation of recent evidence about how humans have altered dogs through artificial selection, and been altered ourselves in the process.

As I discussed in an earlier post, there is much controversy about how long our mutual admiration society has been in operation, with estimates ranging from about 10,000 to 100,000 years.

However long our association with dogs has gone on, we have altered them radically from ancestral wolves although they can still interbreed and are thus the same species. The primary factor that humans selected for was tameness, or low levels of aggression. The main mechanism through which this was accomplished was neotenization, or retention of juvenile low aggression into adult life. We also selected animals who paid attention to us.

The resulting differences between dogs and wolves are striking. When wolves were raised in human homes, they were a great deal more aggressive and less respectful of human rules. Although wolf cubs are cute, they quickly mature into wild animals who have little interest in their masters.

Apart from the more obvious anatomical signs of juvenility, such as shortened snout and more domed skull, adult dogs are remarkably sensitive to human social cues in a way that hand raised wolves are not.

Dogs are exquisitely sensitive to gestures, such as pointing, and are very good at finding hidden food when we point to it, something no other animal can do. Another uncanny canine capacity is their facility at reading our emotions. You don't have to tell your dog whether you have had a good day or not.

How dogs decode our emotions may be complex and is poorly understood. One of the more fascinating recent discoveries is that when dogs look at human faces, they gaze to their left, fixating the right side of our faces that convey more emotion than the left side.

In the course of exploiting their niche as our best friends forever, dogs evolved a varied repertoire of barks to signify various emotions. Wolves evidently have less range in their vocal repertoire although the Nova claim that they have only one bark (for anger) is a mistake (at least for pack animals in the wild). Recent research finds that domestic dogs have at least eight different barks that people can distinguish (e.g., when the dog is left alone, when it encounters a territorial threat, when it is frightened, or dejected).

If all of this were not enough, it seems that dogs are very much better at understanding our words than we are at deciphering their barks. Witness the border collie who recognizes words for some 300 different objects that it will fetch on demand.

It seems that the process of domestication has had profound genetic effects for dogs. Dogs also allowed our ancestors to become much more effective hunters and their services as herders likely played a role in domesticating other species.

An interesting insight into the evolutionary development of dogs, but a little bit too brief for my taste ...

What sorts of unique psychological features did the certain groups of dogs (i.e. herding dogs, working dogs, terriers, bull-baiters, hounds, etc.) develop? What specific sets of personality/temperament traits differentiates one sub-group from the others?

I've also got a breed-related question tied to the statement of wolves being statistically more aggressive and self-serving when compared to dogs: what about the Pitbulls and related breeds (American Staffordshire Terrier, Staffordshire Bullterrier, etc.)? If we cut through the ignorance (dumbed-down media and generalized anti-breed policies on one side versus overly emotional owners who feel misunderstood on the other side), than I need to raise the question: what is going on in the minds of those pitbull-type dogs? Those breeds were bred for aggression only some 10 to 30 generations ago (with some breeders still breeding them towards illegal pitfights nowadays), and they can still turn on their owners or some other unfortunate victims - snap in an unexpected attack not preceded by warning growls, cause severe injuries in persistent attacks (the bull-baiting background), etc.

In short, I'd really like to read up more about "psychological differences in dog sub-groups" and "pitbull psychology", if there ever are such things - unbiased, objective. A strange request indeed, though I'd really appreciate a reply (even a link to a study) from the author or a fellow reader.

"I just personally do not believe that anyone could tell the difference if the wolves are hand raised and treated like pet dogs"

Then you should watch the documentary the article mentions. They conducted this very experiment by having people raise puppies with constant attention until adulthood and then do the same with wolf cubs. As the wolves aged, they became more aggressive and less interested in humans. They grew up to behave like the animals they were despite the fact that they were raised like dogs. The difference is obvious.

It's interesting to read such a wide sprectrum of views on this subject; wolf and dog behaviour. Genetically, they are as identical as one animal can be of another, that is a fact, of course. But the pedomorphism we have inflicted on the species, while having the initial effect of providing dogs with juvenile characteristics into maturity, has also brought us into a certain uneasy acceptance of selfish inbreeding. The recent documentary exposing the kennel club for their focus on inbreeding at all costs to our closest animal friend demonstrated the ease by which we have let this happen in modern society.
The original bent on choosing the wolves best suited to live with us; fluffy ears, short snout and playful natures, has been achieved, but at what cost?
Notwithstanding the moral questions of inbreeding dogs to be 'aggressive' for nothing more than our sport, it does present the question as to whether that trait is bred from the dog characteristic the original wolf. Having consumed the reading materiel from Mr Shaun Ellis (the man who lives with wolves) as a piece of unique behaviour study on the modern wolf, I would have to side with the view that wolves are the less aggressive in nature. Pardon the pun. In the wild, the last resort of any wolf is to fight with another beast that it cannot easily dispatch, and that includes other wolves. It will do pretty much anything to avoid a physical contact that might cause injury. There is no 'vets for u' close by to tend his wounds and feed his offspring if things dont go his way. What onlookers might be confused by in terms of constituting 'aggressive bahaviour' is the terms of their close proximity communication. They bare teeth, growl and charge when comfronted. As a form of close proximity communication with those around them it is very effective and protects them from full on physical contact. It is effective. However, their main response to confrontation is avoidance. Its the default, safe and automatic option for a wild wolf. In fact, most would consider the natural wild wolves as remarkably timid in comparison to the dogs they have known in their lives. The avoidance behaviour making them prefer to hide and skulk when faced with any physical confrontation. This is not to say that they dont chase down and kill other animals for food. Of course, they do. But, to be clear, this is not aggressive behaviour, this is done with the clarity of mind, the planning and the calmness otherwise associated with any critical life saving activity we, as humans, may have to carry out from time to time. Saving a youngster in the pool, running across a motorway or getting your family out when the amoke alarm goes off. It is not aggressive behaviour but life critical action.
For me I have a tiny behaviour study going on in my own home. I have a primitive breed as a pet (a german shepherd) and a border collie. It has been very interesting to compare their behaviours in light of what Shaun has uncovered by his studies. The german shepherd is more wolf like than the border collie in everything. She is more timid, she howls and voices, she is very pack conscious, she is a sentinel and she continually asks for pack reinforcement to be happy. However her true aggressivness is much less than the collie. Its obvious to me now why that is. The collie has been bred to chase and nip for no reason other than that is what we want him to do. The shepherd has not had enough bredding time (a very young breed in evolutionary terms than the collie)to 'naturally' want to use overt aggression. She would just much rather avoid it. When confronted though, she fronts a good game! The collie follows through on any front he plays, the shepherd has never yet;, always prefering to look for pack assistance to disolve the situation, if the stand and stare / show teeth doesnt do the trick. (comes and hides under your legs) Classic wolf behaviour.
I am sure the pit bull question will carry on for some time. For me, its clear that that type of unreasonable, dangerous (for the dog) overt attacking aggression just hasnt come from the wolf behaviour closet. Embarrassing as it may be, I think 'We did that'.
regards,

Canines--Dogs--are very intriguing creatures. I have done researched on why dogs lick feet and was astounded to come across the fact and realization that they can and do detect our feelings, emotions and mood by the doing the aforementioned. We have a lot of nerve endings at our foot and dogs are able to detect how stressed or jovial we've been in the past days solely by licking our feet.